Lost his last election, in 2004, with 30% of the vote.
Government Contracts September 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services says we are not yet at the public inquiry stage in the sponsorship affair. If the government does not set up a public inquiry now, then that is the last we will ever hear of this scandal, because even the future Liberal leader is not at all interested in having any light shed on the matter. He has already said so.
Government Contracts September 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Public Works and Government Services stated that the RCMP and the Auditor General could be relied upon to shed light on the sponsorship scandal. The future prime minster said the same thing.
How can the government give credibility to an RCMP investigation when we know that, in the HRDC scandal, RCMP investigations were the best way to ensure nothing was ever heard again about anything, and no one would ever find out who was responsible for what?
Élaine Allard September 22nd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I and my colleague, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancourt, wish to pay tribute to an exemplary athlete.
Élaine Allard has given us proof that people can do anything if they want to hard enough. She took part in an expedition to Mount Everest, despite being in a wheelchair.
On April 24, 2003, she successfully reached Mount Kala Pattar, with an altitude of 5,545 metres, which is 145 metres higher than the Everest base camp.
Ms. Allard succeeded despite her personal obstacles. Her determination and courage, coupled with the backing of her family and the community as a whole, led to her success.
This exploit adds to my conviction that there is always hope. One day, I am sure, my son, who is also disabled, will be able to conquer the world.
I extend congratulations to Ms. Allard.
Government Contracts September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship scandal did not happen on its own. Decisions were made and someone untied the purse strings and invested dozens of millions of dollars in this scandal.
The Prime Minister should admit that it would be in the public's interest to find out the role of the future Prime Minister, then Minister of Finance, in the sponsorship scandal.
Government Contracts September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the sponsorship scandal, the police investigation led to the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister's conduct and that of his ministers is not under investigation. The Prime Minister was unable to confirm that none of his ministers were involved.
Is there not just one way to clear his government, namely holding a public inquiry on the role his ministers played in the sponsorship scandal? Perhaps that would satisfy us.
Government Contracts June 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, former minister Gagliano confirmed that he did the work he was asked to do with respect to the sponsorships.
Is that not a damning revelation about the Prime Minister, from whom Alfonso Gagliano took his orders, and does that not explain why the government, in a panic, used the ethics counsellor to cover up an operation that has all the makings of a very serious conflict of interest?
Government Contracts June 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, throughout the sponsorship scandal, the government used the ethics counsellor as one of its main defences to cover up its involvement and avoid launching a public inquiry into a member of the government at the time, Alfonso Gagliano.
Since Alfonso Gagliano was the Prime Minister's right-hand man in Quebec, is it not logical to conclude that the government used the ethics counsellor as a front to protect the Prime Minister?
Canada Elections Act June 10th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-24 and, of course, on Amendment No. 11 to create section 536.1.
First, it must be said yet again that the Bloc Quebecois is delighted that the government has introduced this bill, nearly 30 years after Quebec adopted its own political party financing legislation. It is a matter of ensuring a more public financing system, so as to avoid the situation that has existed for a number of years, particularly in the last two, with the sponsorship program.
It is not for nothing that this independence needs to be reworked, so as to ensure that donors have no ties to political parties, as is the case with the sponsorship program and all the money that has been transferred. Groupaction and Everest are just a few examples. So, all the ill effects on society are obvious.
I am my party's public works critic. It is no fun for me to expose the existing corruption or the schemes used to fill the Liberal Party's pockets with public program funding.
It is clear that this bill had to be introduced and the Bloc Quebecois, as I said, agrees with having ceilings on contributions. Why do we agree with this?
It is easy to see that if an individual or a company can finance a political party, he or she certainly will not do so simply so that the political party can win elections, especially if the person gives astronomical amounts of money in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the troubling cases that are currently in the hands of the RCMP, we are talking about contributions of $63,000 and $100,000. Those are big contributors. When someone gives that much money, they expect something in return.
Unfortunately, the sponsorship program was purposely introduced to boost Canada's visibility in Quebec. Of course this was after the 1995 referendum. Nevertheless, the sovereignist movement is still strong in Quebec. People are trying to show and to have everyone believe—especially the media—that the sovereignist movement is on the decline in Quebec after a general election that truly had nothing to do with sovereignty. The only polls that are talked about are those which show a drop in the number of people intending to vote in a general election. However, no one talks about the polls which show that support for sovereignty is still over 40%.
That is why there is an interest in having legislation that sets out ceilings both for individuals and companies. Why? Naturally when we look at these sums of money, $5,000 could be considered a lot for an individual. It is true. There are not too many people who are able to give $5,000, but that is the ceiling; and for companies the ceiling is $1,000.
This also has to be monitored. The legislation specifies that the ceilings of $1,000 for companies and $5,000 for individuals will allow everyone to donate to the party that represents their vision.
Will this be a democratic party? Will it be a party that prefers to be authoritarian and anti-democratic, as the Liberals have been since 1993? Only the leader of this government, the Prime Minister, surrounded of course by the staff of the PMO, has controlled this government and even each of the ministers. People will therefore have a choice of contributing to the financing of a political party that represents that authority and one vision of Canada, but not the one held by Quebec.
Once again, the approach of this government is to try to assume all power, use all the money, notwithstanding the current fiscal imbalance, in order to be able to encroach upon provincial areas of jurisdiction. Then there are others—certainly over 40% of the population—who will want to finance a party that will represent them.
Those people are, of course, sovereignists. They will have the choice of making contributions without any imbalance between a party that receives tens, or hundreds, of thousands of dollars and a party people want to finance because its ideology differs from that of the government. That is what this bill will allow. It will re-establish a balance between those wishing to finance a political party.
So, from the democratic point of view, people will feel far more protected. They will know where their money is going. It will serve to promote their ideas and to let them know what sort of future they will be leaving their children.
This situation does not involve everyone. Probably not all members on the other side are involved with the sponsorship scandals. It is not a hot potato any more. The proof is there and they are refusing to have a public inquiry.
I cannot understand the reaction of hon. members who have no connection whatsoever with this situation, which has been stirred up as the result of a program using the money of our fellow citizens of Quebec and of people everywhere in Canada. This money has allowed friends and companies with which the Liberals have connections to misuse the taxpayers' money.
You read the three Groupaction reports. That is only one of the files. We now know that the problem is even bigger. This is not just about reports that were paid for and never produced. Quite the opposite, some were produced, very well produced indeed.
This money was given to advertising agencies and then contracts were awarded to people with ties to these agencies, to people from their families. And it is not limited to the agencies. Yesterday, you heard question period, like I did. We learned that the minister responsible for this program helped out not only friends of the party, family members of advertising agencies' directors, and his friends, but also his son.
Imagine that. This minister was then given an ambassadorship in Copenhagen, Denmark. Incidentally, I was in Denmark, and do you want to know what people asked me about? They wanted to know if the issue involving Mr. Gagliano was resolved. Imagine the image Canada—but also indirectly, Quebec—is projecting having this type of person as an ambassador.
However, what is most ridiculous is that this person, Alfonso Gagliano, wants to become ambassador to the Vatican. After all of the proof tabled here in the House of Commons, which is now in the hands of the RCMP, they want to appoint this type of person to the Vatican. What kind of image will that project for Canada abroad?
You know as well as I do that a country's image is becoming more and more important given globalization. We saw what Canada did in its decision regarding Iraq. It is a good thing that the Bloc Quebecois was around and that Quebeckers took to the streets, because our government would have supported George Bush.
These are images that we project abroad. I must conclude, but I will come back to this. I think there is one more amendment that will be moved later today. I simply want to say that the time has come for public financing of political parties.
Government Contracts June 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, nothing has been settled. An independent public inquiry would settle things. The Prime Minister is letting Alfonso Gagliano, his former right-hand man who was the driving force behind the Liberal machine in Quebec, off the hook easy.
How can he deny that this calls for a public inquiry when his right-hand man took decisions—several of which are currently under police investigation—when stakeholders took their share in passing, making sure that his party was generously financed, and when his minister's son benefited directly?
Government Contracts June 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, Vincenzo Gagliano agreed that the sponsorship contracts boosted his sales. It was his responsibility to expand business for his group and the contracts gave his career an edge.
When the decisions of the father benefit the son, which was the case with the Gaglianos, does the Prime Minister not believe that his former Minister of Public Works was in a direct conflict of interest and that this unacceptable situation reflects on his entire government?